General Discussion and BS thread -Safe Haven

lighten up Francis

 

I see. Mine is bone stock.
But depending on where you trade it you are technically selling it. I could sell you my car today and basically I would just have to payoff the payoff amount.

Typically with a lease you are just paying for depreciation on the vehicle. Which is why the payment is smaller.

I'll probably buy the next one to keep.

 

Leases are win win for the dealer.

You pay the depreciation.

And you pay for returning it to stock.

And you pay for over mileage.

And then they get to sell it as Certified later on.

You do often have the option to buy out the lease and keep the vehicle.




IMO, i have never bothered with leases.. I have considered them.. and decided against it.

 

Correct. For me I will never go over mileage lol.

I can still turn around and sell it on Craigslist or something if I want.

However buying a lease out at the end is super dumb.

 

Nothing really looked appealing about it to me except the payment..

The wifes Corolla is 100 percent stock right now and likely for awhile. Its a great little car and I considered the lease on it not knowing if i wanted another. But the maths just did not work out in my favor in my brains.






Granted theres basically a system of banging rocks together, and rubbing sticks for fire going on up there at times.

 

It's only dumb if it's financially negative impact. Buying a 'leased' vehicle outright isn't always a bad thing. It depends on a bunch of variables and how you approach the situation. But ultimately, you have to do your research and compare your options.

My husband was in a lease many years ago. Although, I can't remember the details (it was too long ago)....He traded it in at a completely different dealership. The trade-in value was worth much more than the payout amount. Which made the whole situation easier to swallow.

Leases are good for anyone who wants a new car every few years. If money was tight...you could probably get a 5 year lease with a 2+ year residual payout option making your payments extend into 7+ years. But why would you want to do that? Unless you keep the vehicle for 15 years..... Otherwise....If you buy a new car right after those 7 years are done.... It's not any different than having a new lease / new car every 2-3 years (but the benefit of having a NEW car).

 

I had never leased and wanted a used Tacoma. But, as we know, they were the same price as a new one.

Looked into the lease vs financing it, and I am not big fan of large monthly payments. In the end, by leasing I saved close to $300/mo. If I just saved that money and dump it towards the remainder at the end of the lease, I would be at the same number as if I had forked over the larger financing payment each month. Even as long as that number is close in the end... its really not a big deal. Especially because my last vehicles I purchased, used and sold, and ended up losing quite a bit of money. Plus, with taxes and it being a business vehicle, I'll probably end up getting something new anyways (hopefully there will be a contender that offers decent power and mpg).

 

Business use is what makes leasing work. You can write off the entire cost of a lease versus only the the government mandated rate of depreciation on a vehicle bought outright or on financing. My company leases most of our trucks for tax purposes alone.

The things that scare me away from recommending leases for personal use are:

1) Over mileage and damage fee's.
2) The inability to modify or self repair certain things on the vehicle.
3) The "locked in" feeling of long term leases, which can become real if the vehicle turns out to be a lemon.
4) Mandatory full collision insurance, which sucks on a long term lease but doesn't matter on a short term one.

If none of those scare you or you are planning on buying the vehicle near or at the end of the lease than, yes, leasing can work well for you. If any of those things scare you, don't lease.

 

Never had a leased vehicle. For many years I have paid cash for my vehicle. Over the next 5 - 10 years I make myself payments. When I am ready for a new vehicle I have the cash. Only time in the last 20 years I financed a vehicle is they offered 0% (Dodge Ram).

 

Another front end view of the sport

 

Who drops collision on a vehicle that holds its value as well as a Tacoma? I could see something that is worth $10k after 5 years, but a 5 year old TRD Off-road Tacoma is still in the low $20k range.

 

I was just listing points. I have a friend with a 2 year old GMC Sierra 2500HD that doesn't have collision on it. To each their own.

Personally I leave collision on a vehicle until the deductible is worth about 1/8th of it's value.

 

The new tacoma looks okay but damn did toyota fail epically. First off no fully boxed frame like the other trucks have. Even the Hilux is fully boxed. No disc brakes and its friggin 2016!!!! Come on toyota!!!! They had every opportunity for the 3rd gen to be awesome and it failed in a few key areas.... Oh well looks I will be looking at a 4Runner or the other midsize do trucks once nissan puts out a new frontier.

 

Both of those points have been hammered into the ground I think.

The boxed frame is meh. Who cares, as long as the frame is strong enough to handle what the truck is rated for. It's not like the Tacoma twists like a pretzel offroad.

As for the rear drums I guess they didn't fix what wasn't broken. I can't honestly defend Toyota for not moving to rear discs. Almost everything has them but to be honest for 90% of people it's a bling bling addon. In all honesty an unloaded truck gets very little braking force from the rear brakes. I doubt the addition of rear discs would be much to shorten the Tacoma's already low stopping distance. Large calipers in the front would help more than anything. Hopefully Toyota went that direction.

 

Rear disc brakes aren't bling bling to me. They actually help when stopping and towing. The fully boxed frame thing is for rigidity and it also makes sense for a truck that 90% of the time spends on pavement.

 

Rear brakes do nothing for stopping distance on a truck. All the weight shifts forward, especially on a truck which has very little rear end weight, and the rears are basically there to keep the truck straight. The front brakes determine stopping distance except when towing. For towing discs do help, I can't argue against that. Then again the new Tacoma is still only rated for 6800 lbs and anyone who gets even close to that tow rating is not going to enjoy the driving experience for reasons other than the brakes.

All medium and heavy trucks use C-channel frames. It's all about how the frame is designed, not whether it's boxed or not. Rigidity is being a bit over played ever since Ford used to run those commercials showing how little there frame gives. I've run half to full tons with heavy loads at work and I've never had a frame bend TBH, didn't even care about looking at what kind of frame the truck had under it until those Ford commercials. Toyota did there homework and switched the amount of high strength steel in the frame but didn't box it to keep things lower weight. Lower weight leads to a better driving experience and rigidity will be fine if the engineers did their homework.

 

Alright thanks for the explanation

 

I have nothing against drum brakes other than how out of place they look in 2016 on anything but a Mirage or Micra. The channel section of frame on the 05-15 trucks is pretty flexy and jiggly, glad Toyota strengthened it for 16.

 

A little bit of flex is good so you don't snap the frame. If the frame is bouncing around on washboards though that's no good. In my experience with my DCLB I haven't had that issue on washboards. The truck performs as well in those situations as my heavy framed Dodge 2500 TBH.

 

I love it and agree with the MPG and tranny thoughts but I'm banking on better efficiency all around. If drag, fuel, noise & driving comfort/performance are improved then this could be a no-brainer.